What Makes for a Successful Film Franchise? (Part 1: Keeping Cast and Crew Consistent)

Film franchises have been incredibly influential and great at making money for the big studios. But what makes for a good one, not only in terms of financial success but also critical acclaim?

This is far from an easy question to answer and there are many factors that can make a difference.

These are some of the factors that I'll analyze over the course of the series and see how they may or may not apply to various well-known film series.

• Keeping the cast and crew consistent throughout
• Planning the story out ahead of time, or making it up as you go along
• Staying true to either the source material or the original film
• Waiting a long time between sequels or rushing out the next film
• How much continuity is kept between films and if each film works on its own
• Keeping the series fresh and introducing new elements or characters

First, let's look at keeping the cast and crew the same throughout the series, and how much effect that may have on the quality of the films.

Often sequels are criticized as a cynical, unnecessary cash-in if they don't have the original creators and cast members involved. If the directors, writers and/or stars return it can lend it an air of legitimacy.

Bringing the creators back for sequels should theoretically make it easier for them not to stray too far from the tone and intent of the franchises' beginnings.

Obviously, losing cast members can alienate audiences who may be upset to see their favorite characters played by a new actor or absent entirely.

The Star Wars franchise is an interesting example. For the original trilogy, the cast was very consistent. Of course, the main three actors and even a lot of the supporting cast returned for all three. It might have been quite odd for audiences to see a new actor portraying Luke, Han, or Leia and I think the movies definitely would have suffered from a major recast or writing out a main character.

When it came time for the prequels, most of the main cast was new as it was set decades prior to the original films. This was definitely something fans complained about as the absence of Ford, Fisher, and Hamill was sorely felt, especially in comparison to the much-maligned performances of Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman.

However, they did attempt to bring back cast members whenever possible, such as Anthony Daniels as C-3PO and Ian McDiarmid as Emperor Palpatine, with this undoubtedly being to the films' benefit as they provided a necessary link to the original trilogy. 

Obviously, Star Wars was, at least at one point synonymous with George Lucas, who wrote and directed the first film. This gets a bit complicated as he didn't direct the next two films. He got a story credit on The Empire Strikes Back and wrote the story and co-wrote the screenplay on Return of the Jedi. Lucas was a very influential producer on the sequels and the success of the original trilogy is often greatly attributed to him. However, it's worth noting that The Empires Strikes Back was actually directed by Irvin Kershner and that is considered to be as good, if not better than the original by many fans.

For the prequels, Lucas would write and direct all three. Usually having the original creator back in control is seen as a positive thing. If they had been made by some other director it may have been seen as an unnecessary addition solely made for money.

Unfortunately, the films ended up causing an extremely divisive reaction among the public and this shows that having the original creator back for the new installments is far from a guarantee of artistic success.

In fact, this may have actually been a negative since there are plenty of filmmakers who could have made better prequels given the chance.

Once Disney bought the IP, many new directors were brought in, while still keeping on some Star Wars veterans like Lawrence Kasdan. Many actors returned to reprise their roles, but the main characters were pretty much all new faces, especially in Rogue One, which brought back a few known characters in small parts, but with new actors, sometimes aided by CGI. This didn't seem to hurt as the new films were box office hits and generally well-regarded among fans and critics. This was one case where the fanbase was ready for new filmmakers due to the original creator having already made polarizing additions to the universe.

It's not surprising Star Wars could still be popular without the original cast, as it was never hyper-focused on a particular actor, especially compared to series like Indiana Jones, Die Hard, or Rocky. Sure, Luke was clearly the main character of the OT, but many lesser characters ended up being fan favorites as well, even ones that didn't say anything or have more than a minute of screentime.

A lot of people love the franchise for the overall world and not just any one actor or actress. Because it's a whole galaxy with thousands of years of history it's much easier to tell stories in that fictional world that don't even feature the same characters, much less the same cast. The animated shows are great examples of this, like Rebels that focuses on new characters and the voice actors who have been in Star Wars before are mainly relegated to supporting roles.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the biggest examples of well-received films keeping the cast and crew the same. All three were filmed back-to-back and the cast, director, writers, and producers didn't change. This led to a consistent tone, and it may have been pretty jarring if all of a sudden Legolas or Aragorn was recast in between films, as they were released only a year apart. Lord of the Rings is often cited as one of the most consistent trilogies with no dips in quality.

Peter Jackson returned to direct the prequel trilogy of the Hobbit films and a few cast members came back as well. They were significantly worse but the films were still quite financially successful. This franchise may have actually been better with a different director as I can't help but wonder how it may have turned out with Guillermo del Toro.

Similarly, the incredibly popular Harry Potter series kept its main cast for all 8 films, barring a new Dumbledore due to Richard Harris' death. This is one of the advantages of basing your film franchise on novels as they could sign all the actors to contracts for multiple films before they even started.

With directors, it a bit of a different story as there were different ones over the course of the series. Chris Columbus directed the first two, with Alfonso Cuarón making the third and Mike Newell doing number four. David Yates then stepped in to do the final four.

With Harry Potter, the director may not be as important to keeping consistency, as the films mostly just translate the books, with little distinctive style added on, although this was less true as the series went on. They also knew that the name Harry Potter would bring in millions of dollars regardless of who was directing.

The James Bond franchise could go either way, depending on how you look at it. Sean Connery reprised the role as the titular character many times and was a huge part of the films' success. But the series still went on for decades and survived several recasts. Many supporting actors would appear in multiple James Bond entries, but would often be replaced after a few, with the notable exception of Desmond Llewelyn as Q, who was in 17 James Bond movies from 1963 to 1999.

Fans seem to accept that recasts are inevitable given the longevity of the films, but each new Bond is of course controversial. Supporting actors can stay in the franchise for quite a long time with Lois Maxwell's Moneypenny and Bernard Lee's M both lasting through three different Bonds, and Judi Dench even getting to stay on as M despite the continuity being rebooted entirely in 2006.

James Bond might be able to get away with switching filmmakers and even recasts as the movies are serial in nature and rarely reference one in another in any meaningful way, but this is becoming less true with the Daniel Craig version.

Each actor was usually given multiple films that you could think of individual mini-canons. Audiences were clearly okay with a new actor every decade or so, but it would have been pretty weird if each movie had a new James Bond.

The Bond series could survive recasts relatively painlessly since the character itself was quite compelling and had already been established by Ian Fleming in a dozen novels.


In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, recasts are relatively rare, with the most significant counter example being Edward Norton getting replaced by Mark Ruffalo. This wasn't a huge deal as Norton had only been in one movie that was generally considered as one of the least memorable in the MCU. Also, Ruffalo is a better fit for the tone of the Avengers movies and there hasn't even been a Hulk solo film since.

When it comes to their most popular actors like Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans, Marvel Studios makes sure to get multi-picture contracts and bring them back as much as possible.

These stars are undoubtedly a big part of the MCU's success and fans would have probably freaked out if Iron Man 2 or 3 did not star Downey Jr. They seem to be setting the stage for a new group of actors to take the spotlight but this will happen gradually after dozens of films. It will be interesting to see if the box office suffers as a result of the familiar faces leaving their roles.

As far as directors go, Marvel Studios hasn't been afraid to bring them back but has also replaced them when they felt necessary. The Russo Brothers have been mainstays for awhile, directing two Captain America films and making the upcoming Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers 4. They replaced the original director on both franchises, as Joss Whedon made the first two Avengers and Jumanji director Joe Johnston did the first Captain America.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a unique case as it's actually made up of a bunch of smaller franchises, and whether or not a director has stayed on has varied. Guardians of the Galaxy and the first Iron Man were huge hits and loved by fans, so their directors came back for the sequel. Thor and Captain America were slightly less adored, which might have led to the director being replaced on part number two for both of those. The second Thor got only 66% on Rotten Tomatoes and that director was replaced as well, with What We Do in the Shadows filmmaker Taika Waititi looking like he might be breathing some much needed fresh air into the Thor movies. Iron Man 2 was also a disappointment and Jon Favreau reportedly complained about studio interference, so Shane Black came on for Iron Man 3.

In many of these cases, the director replacements seem to be for the better, with the strongest exception being losing Kenneth Branagh in the Thor series. Although perhaps in the end that will work out for the best because Thor: Ragnarok has a good chance of being the best in the trilogy.

Marvel Studios also likes to bring back composers, like Alan Silvestri doing Captain America: The First Avenger and The Avengers, and Brian Tyler doing Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and Age of Ultron. This makes sense as they want to keep all the MCU films looking and sounding a certain way, with the scores often getting criticized for being generic and too similar to other superhero movies.

It's hard to argue with anything they do in a commercial sense as they've made 4 billion dollar earners and 11 that made at least half a billion. On top of that, they've even had 6 movies get over a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and only 2 have hit just below 70%.

The first two X-Men films were both directed by Bryan Singer and were both pretty solid, but they took a massive plunge in quality when Brett Ratner took over for the end of the trilogy.

Singer eventually produced the prequel X-Men: First Class, which was a moderate box office success and a huge improvement on X-Men 3. He then directed Days of Future Past, which was one of the best X-Men movies, getting a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes and making almost $750 million worldwide. On the other hand, he was also responsible for X-Men: Apocalypse which wasn't nearly as good and made about $200 million less at the box office.

It helped having Bryan Singer as a regular presence, but the series needs to move past him. He isn't directing the upcoming X-Men: Dark Phoenix but will get a producer credit. Fox is trying to keep some continuity with the filmmakers as it's being directed by Simon Kinberg, who was either a writer or producer on four previous X-Men movies, in addition to producing Logan.

The cast was mainly the same for the original X-Men trilogy with many coming back for Days of Future Past. But then First Class and Apocalypse have almost an entirely different cast. I think in a franchise like X-Men keeping the cast isn't quite as essential, since there are so many characters to choose from and decades of stories to tell.

The Batman movies kept Tim Burton and Michael Keaton through two films, but the studio eventually saw this as a bad thing due to Batman Returns underperforming, in their minds at least partly due to Burton's dark style.

In retrospect, I wish they would have kept Burton on longer. Even though I'm not his biggest fan, it couldn't have been much worse than Batman and Robin. Joel Schumacher stayed on for the last two before the reboot but that clearly didn't help.

Then, of course, Christopher Nolan took over for three films that kept the cast mostly the same, except Katie Holmes turning into Maggie Gyllenhaal. The screenplays and stories of all three were written by some combination of the Nolan brothers and David S. Goyer. Keeping the same filmmakers clearly helped keep a consistent tone and give fans a trilogy that felt like it had at least somewhat of a throughline.

Batman has been interpreted in so many ways over the years in comics, animation, movies, and games, that it's not surprising that directors with wildly varying styles can still be successful in telling a Batman story.


The new DC universe has been pretty consistent about keeping their directors, as Zack Snyder has now made three DC films and Patty Jenkins will return for the Wonder Woman sequel. Bringing back Jenkins will undoubtedly be key to that film's success, partly just from a PR perspective, but keeping Snyder on has actually been to the movies' detriment, at least in my opinion and that of many fans.

The Star Trek films are an unusual case. The cast stayed the same for six movies before being replaced entirely. There was however, Star Trek Generations where three members of the original cast appeared and William Shatner had a pretty significant part. After that, though it was all about the new characters. This didn't seem to hurt the box office as First Contact was highly profitable, making $120 million worldwide on a $38 million budget. The franchise would come back down to earth leading to the financial failure of Nemesis and the eventual reboot.

The reboot featured all new actors, except for a small appearance by Leonard Nimoy. Enough time had passed since the originals that a total recast made sense. It had been thirty years between Star Trek: The Motion Picture and 2009's Star Trek and I doubt general audiences were pining for a science fiction adventure featuring geriatric actors.

Multiple directors worked on the series, and none more than twice. A lot of the original six films all felt different from one another, but it works and they probably would have gotten stale if they all had the same tone, so mixing up the directors may have been an advantage.

Like Star Wars, Star Trek is a whole universe of characters and stories, with centuries of fictional history, so it can easily withstand crew and cast changes.



The sequel to the iconic science fiction film Alien did not bring back Ridley Scott but managed to keep the same level of quality despite a shift towards action due to bringing in another huge director in James Cameron. The first entry has a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, and the second one is slightly higher at an almost perfect 98%.

Sigourney Weaver staying in the lead role for the third and fourth Alien movies didn't stop them from getting much worse reviews, as they are both around 50% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Scott eventually came back for Prometheus and the fifth Alien movie, with mediocre results. I would have rather seen new blood be injected into the franchise and I'm curious how Neill Blomkamp's version would have turned out.


The Matrix sequels kept the directors and main cast but that didn't save them from being massively underwhelming.

Transformers made it through a whole new cast relatively unscathed, but director Michael Bay has taken the relatively unusual step of directing five movies in the same series, leading to a franchise that is consistent in being terrible.


All 4 Indiana Jones movies have Steven Spielberg as director, Harrison Ford as the star, and stories from George Lucas. This is an example of an intellectual property that is strongly associated with its main actor, and accordingly, the supporting cast is rarely the same. Ford carries the series on his shoulders and a lot of people wouldn't be happy with anyone else starring in an Indiana Jones flick.

The first three Indiana Jones movies came out in the 1980s and having the same director, writer, and star led to a consistently great trilogy, but after they took a 19-year hiatus, the magic just wasn't there.

Another Spielberg franchise Jurassic Park made much less after he left, with Jurassic Park III grossing $250 million less than its predecessor. However, a lack of Spielberg in the director's chair didn't hurt Jurassic World at the box office one bit as it made $1.6 billion and became the fourth highest-grossing movie ever.

The Back to the Future trilogy had the same writers, director, producers, cinematographer, editors, and composer on all three and kept the cast mostly the same besides 2 recasts. They were all box office hits, although Part III did do slightly worse than the first two. Despite the original being regarded as the best by a fair margin, I think it's one of the more consistent trilogies out there.

Horror sequels often have directors leave after the first installment and quickly move on from the original cast.

John Carpenter only directed the first Halloween but he did write and produce Halloween II and produce number three. There was a pretty significant drop off in quality after he left. Jamie Lee Curtis leaving after part two didn't help either but at least actor Donald Pleasance stayed on until Halloween 6 lending a bit of gravitas to what eventually became pretty cheesy movies. Jamie Lee Curtis did return for Halloween H20 and Resurrection, leading to at least one halfway decent entry, and bringing her back undoubtedly helped those films at the box office.

None of the straightforward A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels were directed by Wes Craven, but Robert Englund was always in the role of Freddy until the reboot in 2010. In my opinion, this was crucial for these films and the sequels could have been much worse with a different Freddy. When Wes Craven eventually came back for the meta New Nightmare, the result was the best of all the sequels.

When a series is so closely tied with one character that has such a clear personality, it's important to keep that actor on. It's not like in Halloween or Friday the 13th where they often just walk around in a mask silently and kill people.


Comedy and action franchises can often be focused on a specific actor or actress. In action you've got Bruce Willis in Die Hard, Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible, Liam Neeson in Taken, Sylvester Stallone in Rambo, Jackie Chan in Police Story, and Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon. These are the kind of movies that they might stop making entirely if the actors in question don't want to do them anymore. For example, it's hard to imagine Die Hard without Willis, although I'm sure it will eventually be rebooted.

The Terminator movies are inextricably linked with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who starred in the first three but skipped Salvation. Him returning to his role didn't help the critically panned Terminator Genesys.

Likewise, many comedy film series are centered around a specific person or duo, like Mike Myers in Austin Powers, Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop, and Rush Hour with Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. A Bad Boys movie without Will Smith and Martin Lawrence would be pointless.

This makes sense as these genres are sometimes more about the personalities of the stars as opposed to fantastic stories and great direction.

How significant keeping the same director in action and comedy can be is more up in the air. The first two Terminator films are considered classics of the action genre, but they got much worse after James Cameron left.

Despite still having Arnold and coming out 12 years later, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines still grossed almost $100 million less than Terminator 2 and scored only 70% on Rotten Tomatoes as opposed to the second one's 93%.

In Die Hard, John McTiernan did the first and third ones, which are usually thought of as the best. He faced legal trouble and eventually went to prison so as you might have guessed, he was unavailable to direct the fourth and fifth Die Hards, which still made money but didn't have the feel of the original trilogy, with number five getting a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The first three Mad Max films were very focused on Mel Gibson's character, but the series came back strong in 2015 despite a recast. All four movies were directed and written by the same person, George Miller and this is a strong counter example to the Phantom Menaces and Crystal Skulls of the world that shows that a director can still come back to his franchise decades later and make a great film.

The four Lethal Weapon installments were all made by Richard Donner and Joel Silver, but writer Shane Black left after Lethal Weapon 2. It may not be a coincidence then that the first two got 84% and 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, while 3 and 4 got 56% and 52%.

Some film series pretty much belong to one director like Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Richard Linklater's Before trilogy, and Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy, although the leads are also an integral part of these movies.


So how important is keeping the cast and crew intact for making a successful film franchise? Well, there isn't an easy answer to that. At best we can say it depends on things such as the genre. Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror seem to be able to survive cast and crew replacements easier than Action and Comedy.

That's far from a hard and fast rule and it depends on many different factors. But generally speaking, all things being equal, it tends to be better to maintain a similar cast and crew throughout a movie series. This seems to be especially true when a franchise is first starting out but often has diminishing returns after a couple decades as seen in Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and The Godfather.

After a while, new people need to come in and keep things fresh, or you end up with something like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

As far as box office goes, it would seem the cast has a much bigger effect than the filmmakers, as the general audience may know the actors and actresses but have no idea who wrote or directed the movie.

Iconic characters like Batman can live through recasts and new directors because he's existed for decades in multiple forms of media. A Batman movie is pretty much guaranteed to make money regardless of who's playing Bruce Wayne. And if the new team is talented enough no one bats an eye. When Batman Begins came out I don't think anyone was clamoring for George Clooney or Val Kilmer.

Franchises that have fantastic characters, stories or concepts tend to have more legs as opposed to ones that are so strongly connected to a specific personality or directorial style.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are Star Wars and Marvel films for multiple decades to come, but new successful entries for franchises like Indiana Jones and Austin Powers are way less of a sure thing.


I also think that film series that are based on pre-existing source material can make it through recasts and new filmmakers easier than others. With things like Harry Potter, James Bond or Batman, people are often more into the stories and characters as opposed to specific directors or actors.